“Anyone who can afford that can easily fill out some paperwork and run a few tests, just like I can pay a few bucks to get a driver’s license. It’s the least they can do.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Companies that can afford $100M+ training runs can easily afford SB-1047's paperwork and testing requirements.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The misguided backlash against California’s SB-1047, paragraph 29.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-misguided-backlash-against-californias-3b63cd-a2
We recorded 8 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2024-06-07. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- $100M+ training runs
- Anyone who can afford that
- can easily fill out some paperwork and run a few tests
Our interpretation
- The plain reading is that developers able to finance training runs costing over $100 million could afford the proposed paperwork and testing duties without material financial strain.
- Assess the proposal and developers' financial capacity as they stood on June 7, 2024. This is a present-tense affordability claim, not a prediction that the bill would become law.
- The driver’s-license comparison conveys a modest burden relative to resources; it does not literally price compliance at a few dollars.
- Marcus supplies neither a numerical affordability threshold nor an accounting basis.
Counts as supported if: Credible estimates covering the June 2024 proposal's paperwork and testing duties, compared with qualifying developers' available financial resources, establish that those duties would be readily affordable across the stated class.
Counts as contradicted if: Credible estimates identify a developer able to finance a $100 million-plus training run for whom the same duties would impose material financial strain.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The June 18, 2024 Assembly committee analysis described SB-1047's requirements as “not onerous” [e1]. It considered proposed later amendments and supplied no quantified comparison of compliance costs with developers' available resources [e1]. This qualitative assessment does not establish whether the June 7 proposal's duties were readily affordable across the stated class [e1].
Limitations
- The packet contains no documented estimate of the June proposal's incremental paperwork and testing costs matched to developers' available resources and existing commitments.
- The later committee assessment cannot establish affordability of the earlier proposal.
- “Easily” has no numerical threshold, and the claim specifies no accounting basis.
Evidence (1 item)
Context only: California Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection,
SB 1047’s requirements are not onerous.
Why it matters here: The committee expressed a view consistent with Marcus's general position. It assessed proposed amendments after his post and did not provide measured compliance costs or a comparison with developers' financial resources.
- Publisher
- California Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Documented estimates of the June 7 proposal's incremental staff and compute costs, with assumptions and uncertainty, compared with qualifying developers' available resources and existing commitments on a stated accounting basis. Evidence must establish ready affordability across the class or identify a qualifying developer facing material financial strain.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The misguided backlash against California’s SB-1047
Anyone who can afford that can easily fill out some paperwork and run a few tests, just like I can pay a few bucks to get a driver’s license. It’s the least they can do.
- Where
- paragraph 29
- Published
- 2024-06-07
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-misguided-backlash-against-californias-3b63cd-a2: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-the-misguided-backlash-against-californias-3b63cd-a2.